Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1986-10-27 City Council Summary Minutes
CITY COUf1CI L MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 1986 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of October 6, 1986 Consent Calendar 1. Agreement Between Stanford University and d City of Palo Alto re Maintenance of a Traffic Signal at Palm Drive and Arboretum Road CITY PALO ALTO PAGE 7;8 15 7 8 1 5 7 8 1 5 7 8 1 6 2. Award of Contract for Sixth Floor Remodel, 7 8 1 6 Civic Center Office Building 3. Use of Refuse Area by Stanford University 7 8 1 6 4. Contract for Library Computer System Mainten- 7 8 1 6 a nce 5 Amendments to the Municipal Code 7 8 1 6 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 7 8 1 7 6, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 7 8 1 7 mendation re Application of Dr. A. I. Haimson for a Zone Change from RM-1 and RM-2 to PC for Property Located at 145 and 1.65Hawthorne 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Policy and Procedures 7 8 1 7 Committee Recommendation re Historic Preserva- tion Ordinance, and Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Density Transfer 9. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommenda- tion re Refinancing Outstanding Debt 10, Planning Commission Recommendation re Defini- tion of Boarding Houses and Creating Restric- tions 7 8 2 7 7 8 2 7 7 8 1 3 10/27/96 ITEM 1 PAGE Recess from 9:40 p:m. to 9:50 p.m. 7 8 3 5 11. Historic Resources Board Recommendation re 51 Encina 8. Policy and Procedures Recommendation re Over- night Parking of Pushcarts 12. Sidewalk Encroachment and Pushcart Criteria: Ordinance Implementation 13. Councilmember Renzel re Response to Public Notice from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Concerning the Yacht Harbor 7 8 3 5 7 8 3 6 7 8 3 6 7 8 3 9 Adjournment at 10:20 p.m. 7 8 4 0 7 8 1 4 10/27/86 Regular Meeting Monday, October 27, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto net on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb announced additional staff material was available to the public under Item 7, Public Hearing: Policy and Procedures Committee Recommendation re Historic Preservation Ordinance and New Comprehensive Plan Program on Density TransLer. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Marion Mandell, 250 Parkside Drive, presented to the City of Palo Alto the fourth Sister City award for the Oaxaca village project which involved a large number of volunteers and benefLted 25,000 school children in the Bay Area. The Reader's Digest Foundation and Sister Cities International awarded Palo Alto the Best Single Project for a City of its size. Mayor Cobb accepted the award and said the Neighbors Abroad Corrittee did a fantastic job for the City. Recently the Mayor's office had been visited by people from various countries interested in Sister City programs for their nations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6 , 1986 MOTION: Corunc i l:member Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Minutes of October 6, 1986 as submitted. ROTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Cobb noted wording changes to be incorporated in Item 5 on the seqond reading regarding dollars being deposited on the first busines day that the Revenue Collections Division was open. Counci1meeber Patitucci asked to be recorded as "not participating" in Item 1 and Item 3. LION: ClOomCilmembor Sutorius coved, erraoaded by Klsia, approval: of tb, Connoat Calendar. 7 8 1 5 10/27/86.. FOR MAINTENANCE ARBORETUM ROAD (1067) (CMR:521t6) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement by and between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford. Junior University and the City of Palo Alto for Traffic Signal Maintenance at Palm Drive and Arboretum Road. AGREEMENT BETWEEN STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND CITY OF PALO ALTO OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PALM DRIVE AND 2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SIXTH FLOOR REMODELL CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING (810-02) (CMR:529:6) Staff recommends that Council o Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with AP Construction Company in the amount of $32,126.89 o Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $5,000. 3. USE OF REFUSE AREA BY STANFORD UNIVERSITY (1074) (CMR:505:6) Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to sign Amendment No. 7 to Agreement 4039, which has been approved by Stanford University. 4. CONTRACT FOR LIBRARY COMPUTER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE (1342) (CMR:498:6)` Staff recommends that Council: :Authorize the Mayor to execute the Contract with Dynix Incorporated, for $32,148 to provide software and hardware maintenance services for the Library's computer system Authorize staff to increase the contract a,t,unt to $5,000 annually or up to $15/000 total by amendment to provide a contingency for maintenance of additional equipment and software as needed. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE (701-01) (CMR:504:6) Staff recommends Council approval of the ordinance for first reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Sections in Chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Various and Departments" to reflect departmental reorganizations and realignment of duties and responsibilities. 1 MOTION PASSED unaniaously, Patitucci 'not participating" Items 1 and 3. 8 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS/ AND DELETIONS MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to hear Item S, Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation re Overnight Parking of Pushcarts, followed by Item 12, Sidewalk Encroachment and Pushcart Criteria. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF DR. A. I. HAIMSON FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM RM-1 AND RM-2 (RESTRICTED . DENSITY AND LOW DENSITY . MULTIPLE FAMILY _RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT'S) TO PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 145 anc 1 5 HAWTHORNE Mayor Cobb said applicant requested continuance of the item to November 24, 1986. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue the item to November 24, 1986. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 7. .PUBLIC HEARING: POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA- TION RE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROGRAM ON DENSITY TRANSFER. `211-01) (CMR:522:6 Policy -and Procedures (P&P) Committee Chairman Klein said there were a few major changes outlined in the staff report (CMR:522:6) . P&PCommittee spent a good deal of time on what was "fair market value" and what constituted "no reasonable economic use." Those two standards were significant with regard to when a demolition permit could be issued for a building in historic categories 1 or 2., The P&P Committee believed. the standards were workable, at least in concept. Similarly, the P&P Committee recommended the concept of density transfer. The P&P Committee decided a more detailed ordinance was not appropriate given the small amount of square: footage subject to the density transfer and the time and energy spent in drafting such an ordinance. 7 S 1.7 10/27/86 MOTION: Councilmember Klein for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved adoption of the ordinance and resolution.. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL 01 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.49 (HISTORIC PRE6gRVA ION) OF THE. PLLO _ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" RESOLUTION 6571 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TOE CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A PROGRAM . ON DENSITY TRANSFER" Councilmember Patitucci said some of the properties that. had density transfer were quite small and asked what might happen mechanically in a density transfer for a property that had 400 square feet to transfer. Manager, Planning Projects, George Zimmerman said the mechanics would not change whether the property had 400 or 4,000 .square feet. If there was an agreement between a seller and a buyer of those rights, they would jointly apply for a Planned Community (PC) zone and go through the process for a PC zone change which would tie in the seller's site to the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) , and the receiver's site to the acquired additional up to 0.5 FAR. Assuring the receiver's site met_ all other ceiteria spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, it would proceed. If the Planning Commission recommended approval and Council con- curred, there would be a PC change involving a density transfer transaction, and the PC zone change would involve two separate sites. Councilmember Bechtel clarified in actuality only three of the six properties would likely be candidates for density transfer because the other three did not have enough square footage available to make it worth the bother. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel asked how the Thoits Building was affected by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zimmerman said being a Category 2 structure, if the proposed revisions to the historic preservation ordinance were approved, deJolition would be severely restricted unless the structure were determined to be a public safety hazard, or if severe economic restrictions made it infeasible to do restoration and still have a reasonable return on the investment, or if the Council believed the value of the historic structure was not meaningful and there- fore demolition would was permitted. 7 8 1 8 10/27/86 City Attorney Diane Northway said the building could be demolished if it was determined to be dangerous, and she believed the City was on the verge of doing that. Nothing in the ordinance would change the fate of the building in terms of its condition. Councilmember Sutorius clarified there was no prohibition for aggregating density transfer such that' it was entirely within reason that a. receiver site could attract a density transfer from more than one historic site. Mr. Zimmerman said it was possible. Councilmember Sutorius asked whether it was necessary to revise the wording in the staff report (CMR:522:6) in terms of the Comprehensive Plan in such an event. He queried the terms used to convey the economic questions involved. Ms. Northway said the area was complicated and the City would be grappling with it particularly during the practical situation. She was not sure whether it could be made less complex. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the questions raised at the P&P Committee were not easily resolved by including a couple of sentences in the ordinances, but rather case -by -case determinations would be involved. Ms. Northway said yes. Councilmember Levy asked v. ►nfher 4i. : a; feasible to not have a PC zone process or whether it was a necessity in furthering the transfer of density concept. Mr. Zimmerman said a PC was the only mechanism recommended to date to implement the density transfer process in order to preserve historic properties. Councilmember Levy asked whether it was feasible for the City to use the criteria laid out in pages 4 and 5 of CMR:522:6, but within the basic CD zone and not use the PC process. Mr. Zimmerman said there would be no contract between the City and the affected properties. There would be no way to tie dcen restrictions placed on the seller's site or the receivers site or sites. Senior Assistant City Attorney Marlene Prendergast i.el.ieved the PC process was necessary; otherwise, there needed to be a density transfer ordinance, which was long and complicated. If necessary, the PC ordinance_ clould be recorded in order for it to go into the chain of title. 7 8 1' -9 10/27/86 Councilmember Levy queried whether a density transfer ordinance would result in a shorter process when the actual implementation took place. Ms. Prendergast did not necessarily believe so. The PC process could be long, but it involved plans more than the question of transfering density and most of the process took place between the willing buyer and seller, and the City was not involved in the valuation of the rights. Tr that sense, a PC would be easier. Mayor Cobb queried an individualwith a marginally economic piece of property caught up in the mechanics of the ordinance. In the.. process of being forced to hold the property and maintain the situation for up to the one year allowed by the ordinance, the individual faced, as a�° result, a severe economic hardship. He asked whether the individual had any options other than trying to sell the property. Ms. Prendergast said not really if voiced in terms of the economic hardship because there was a different focus to the exception process which looked to reasonable economic use. It was not economic hardship per se to the person involved. Councilmember Patitucci hypctheci:mod `ty .-•hic be -t i... ....... .... ...v ... r. .. .. t. .. �l naa i�r la could be sold tor the overlying zone whPrP t -he raw land with no building would be worth $100,000, but if the property was designated historic and the maximum rent yielded a present value of. $50,000, what would be reasonable econoic use in that instance. Ms. Northway believed as long as the return was reasonable and the property could be maintained and gave some return in excess of expenses, it would not matter that more could be obtained if sold for the land value. Councilmember Patitucci said that met no tests of reasonable economic return which was always relative to the value`_ one could sell the property. The whole concept of alternative use as opposed to an economic return did not appear to be considered in CMR:522*b. Ms. Prendergast said the case lawwith regard to holding was clear that the fact one could have a greater alternative use wasnot the determining point, nor was the fact the regulations brought about a fairly great diminution in market value or economic use. Councilmember Patitucci clarified ,that if he owned property: he bought for $40,000 and put in $10,0000 _ he could get rent that would give him t 10 percent return, and that might be corisider;ed a reasonable rate o4_ return. In reality that was $5,000 a year on what alternatively was a $100,000 investment, because if the 7 8`2 0 10/27/86 building could be demolished and the land sold, he would make a greater return than, by maintaining the property. He asked if it was correct that the ordinance would force him to maintain the property at the lower economic return, but that was reasonable. 8 1 Ms. Northway said yes. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Irwin Kaale, 265 Lytton Avenue, represented the President Apartments, and raised the issue of upgrading historic property and its supervision by the City. The issue of slow-motion upgrading appeared logical and could be done in an economically feasible way to not only preserve the cultural value for the City but preserve the property rights of the owner•. In regard to dramatic upgrading, it was possible that the only way to correct an existing seismic hazard might be to make some more than average changes in an historic building if there was to be a reasonable economic return to the owner. There could be occasions when reasonable changes in the external appearance could maintain a good building that would still have some historic value but would not satisfy purists. He hoped the language in the ordinance would allow some flexibility. The new hotel at 520 Cowper Street was stilllisted as an historic building. The owners were flattered to be considered outstanding in design and craftsmanship, but requested a correction be made in the City's records. Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, represented the Chamber of Commerce .and referred to a letter dated October /5, 1986, (on file in the City Clerk's office) indicating Chamber support for efforts to preserve Palo Alto's community character through the historic preservation ordinance. The Chamber was concerned the ordinance was counter -productive because there were no incentives for property owners to preserve buildings. The Thoits' building would need a variance from present ordinances which required the con- struction of 28 'parking spaces; however, one City staff member said the variance would be subject to a supplemental EIR because it would go against the City Council's previous certification of the Downtown EIR which essentially prohibited exacerbation of the parking deficit. The Chamber sugges.ed Council turn the disincen- tive into an incentive by an automatic exemption from any require- ments for on -site panting for the six or so historic structures which were residential in nature and hit the hardest by the provi- sion. There were only six such structures in the Downtown Series G Parking Assessment District. Exempting such a large building as the Laving _ Chateau from having to provide parking might be ill- advised. The other five structures were three stories orunder and could easily be exempted from the parking requirements. It might be helpful to have a sentence in the ordinance to clarify ,a redesignatiel in an historic structure was possible and would follow the same process as the original designation. 7 8 2 1 10/27/86 Counciimember Sutorius asked if Mr. Knox raised the parking and possible exemptions as a concern, that might be addressed not within the frame of the ordinance before Council but through reexamination of the CD zone regulations. Ir. Knox believed it was inappropriate to suggest to Council how to word an ordinance as he was not familiar with all the overlays of ordinances. ht the simplest level, the historic preservation ordinance could include an exemption for all historic structures that were residential, or three stories and under, or frame buildings in construction. eN Warren Thoi ts, 525 University Avenue, owned property on Emerson Street, and was concerned about the lack of incentive and assis- tance to a property owner having to meet the requirements _ which were theoretically in the interests of the community. Several different possibilities were discussed at the P&P Committee, but he was not sure they were discussed in sufficient depth. An ordi- nance which locked a property_ owner into a possibly intolerable situation. deserved consideration and modification in terms of exemptions, some form of public financing and assistance, etc. The issue was property with historical status, which in and of itself suggested "old" property that was not up to code, was not required to be up to code when it started , and was not kept up to code since. If it was in the public interest to preserve the property, the public might be obliged to share . some of the burdens. For the City Attorney's staff to attempt to define economic return" in the context of such unusual property with unusual expenses and unusual needs, was a problem. He believed the ordinance was being considered by Council in final form before the problems were given adequate consideration. In terms of the Emerson Street property, the ordinance would effect a change in the present situation in terms of requiring him to maintain the property unless he could prove an economic burden or that the property was dangerous. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. Elizabeth Kittas. Historic Resources Board (HRH), said the incen- tives caste about because as each property was .considered, no one solution seemed to work for all. An example was the density transfer which seemed to hold a real value for a few properties. In other situations, the HRB tried to touch upon benefits that could accrue to any of the properties on the inventory. Buildings on the national register or districts still qualified for federal investment tax credits of 20 percent. The HRB intended to provide assistance in terms of forms, research,sponsorship, and follow-up with contacts at the state and national ievel Ten percent was still ,retained for buildings over 50 years old that Were not on 7 8 2 2 10/27/86 the national registers The second incentive was part of the CD district and allowed exemptions in the floor area ratio (FAR) and parking. The third incentive being considered was to provide some financial assistance to historic property owners in their efforts to rehabilitate, restore, or maintain their. properties. A public meeting was scheduled for December 4, 1986, and all historic propertyowners in the Downtown would be noticed. The fourth item referred to density tansfer. Vice Mayor Woolley asked about the feasibility of having an ordi- nance which provided an exemption from parking requirements for the five properties geographically within the assessment district, but which were never members of the assessment district because of their residential nature. Ms. Prendergast believed it was possible, but did not believe i t was appropriate to be contained in the historic preservation ordi- nance because parking regulations for the Downtown were contained in the Commercial Downtown ordinance. It was feasible to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Councilmember Bechtel asked what the exemption for parking in the CD for historic structures entailed. Mr. Zimmerman said there were two exemptions for expansion of historic structures. One related to an exemption from parking and the other referred to an exemption from the new FAR, which would allow expansion of historic structures of up to 25 percent in addition to the floor area or 2,500 square feet of additional floor area, whichever was greater. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the existing ordinance did not affect changes of use. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct for the individual residential properties within the boundaries of the assessment district, but which have not paid into it. Mayor Cobb was concerned about economic hardship. Property owners were not always of considerable means and such hardships might harm some people and not serve the intent of the historic preser- vation ordinance. AMEX$ UTt CCaaciiasa er; Patitvccf mewed that the density transfer wily be permitted in quantities greater them 2,000 aware feet. &M* $$T DUD FOR LACK OP A MONO 7 8 2 3 10/27/86 Councilmember Patitucci could not support the ordinance. He was concerned about "economic value.* A property owner could be required to take a bureaucratically determined "reasonable rate of return." There was incentive, if there was an alternative value to the land underlying the buildings, for a property owner to lc. the property deteriorate and eventually demolish it after long periods of time in which the building became hazardous. He did not believe the community would benefit by having hazardous buildingsa.hanging around. He preferred a much more aggressive program where some capital improvement money was used for the City to get involved in rehabilitating identified properties. He did not believe putting the entire burden on the property owner, even though they had some minor incentives, was appropriate. Councilmember Renzel had grave concerns about density transfer in generals but supported the ordinance because it affected a small amount of square footage. The ordinance required upkeep of the historic structures so they were not deliberately allowed to deteriorate over time. Properties were also valued based on what could be done on them, and someone buying any of the properties would know what could be done and would not be prejudiced by an excessively high price from which they should expect a greater rate of return. Councilmember Klein agreed with Councilmember Renzel. Council - member Patitucci's comments went to the heart of the ordinance, and if his view was adopted, Council could forget about historic preservation. Councilmember Ratitucoi's concept of highest and best use meant how . much money a developer could make on the prop- erty and ignored Council's desire to preserve some of the City's historic buildings. The historic preservation ordinance was another form of zoning. Zoning served a variety of. public pur- poses and it prevented a landowner from maximizing the profits on a particular parcel of land. Without such concepts, there was nothing to prevent an R-1 owner of a 5,000 square foot lot in a residential area from building a 50 -foot office building, which could yield a lot moremoney than could housing. He agreed the definition of "reasonable economic use" would take some work in actual practice. The alternative of trying to spell out a detailed definition of "reasonable economic use" was not worth- while. He was sensitive to the concerns of a landowner and was not prepared to require a landowner to retain a building no matter what, but believed the community was entitled to reasonable pro- teetion to see that its heritage was not willy-nilly thrown down merely for the . sake of a greater profit. On balance, the ,ordi- nance was workable and should be given a chance. 7 8 2 4 10/27/86 Couneilmember Sutorius supported the density transfer concept and hoped the experience would lead to opportunities to apply the con- cept to other than historic properties. It was important the his- toric ordinance and the language being described permit the aggre- gating, which was the only way some of the smaller properties would benefit. He was satisfied the PC was the least cumbersome approach although he preferred a varian:e-type approach. He shared the concerns regarding the economic questions and under- stood the concerns of Councilmember Patitucci. However, staff said the fine line was the taking or "confiscation," and he belileVe}d there was a,, distinction between what could be maximized out of a holding versus what the situation permitted. When the HRB and others addressed financial assistance, he encouraged care- ful consideration before concluding to treat the entire Downtown as some type of an historic district .for purposes of furthering an application or the potential for applications to move along a lit- tle better. The reason for tax reforms was taking advantage of situations which were clearly not the thrust of incentive law. To him, there was no way an affluent community with the condition of the Palo Alto Downtown could declare itself as an entire historic area and furtt'r applications or the potential individual applica- tions for such unusual assistance. He anticipated a motion aimed at giving direction to staff to look at the subject of parking in the CD area as it impacted the five properties identified as resi- dential in their historic existence which had not participated in theassessment district. -He anticipated such direction would lead to Planning Commission consideration, and possible referral to the Historic Resources Board for its recommendation and comment. Vice Mayor Woolley said California Preservation News that day said "Redlands joins the leaders" because or August 2, by unanimous vote, the Redlands City Council passed a similar ordinance to the one being considered which limited demolition and contained a pro- vision called "demolition by neglect," which she believed was what Council was talking about in the maintenance ordinance. Palo Alto would probably be the third city to take such an action, and she encouraged support. Councilmember Patitucci clarified he was not talking about *highest and best use" in terms of taking an R-1 property and turning it into a multi -family property in the middle. of an R -1 zone. He was talking about uses consistent with zoning. If some- one 'had a shack in an R-1 zone and was r'quired to maintain the shack rather than build a normal R-1 house, there would be economic detriment as a result of the ordinance. Properties in the downtown area were being identified and the owner was being required to maintain and use them under the restictions and not realize . the value of the underlying zone --not another or excessive zone. He could not support it and wanted to see Council work on incentive* rather than penalties. He asked folk the motion to be divided ftr purposes of voting. 7 8 2 5 10/27/86 MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION TO APPROVING THE P&P COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA- TION • EXCEPT FOR DENSITY TRANSFER PASSED by a vote of 8-1, P*titucci voting "no.* SECOND PART OF MOTION REGARDING DENSITY TRANSFER PASSED unani- mously. MOTION: Vice Niger Woolley moved,. seconded by Suterius, to refer to the Planning Commission the exemption of residential historic properties within the Assessment District from the on -site . perking requirements triggered by a change in use. Councilmernber Renzel was concerned about the referral because she believed conversion to office uses was a significant intensifica- tion and change in the nature of traffic, and raised questions of equity within assessment districts of people who paid and who did not pay getting to enjoy significant benefits. Council might be going too far to exempt the parking requirement because people could still buy into the parking garages and other opportunities in the future. She believed Council was working towards oppor- tunities to deal with such a problem which fell short of outright exemptions which would exacerbate the problems downtown. Councilmernber Fletcher said when Council passed the downtown rezoning, there was a provision for in -lieu payments for properties too small to have parking on -site. She clarified the provision would apply to historic structures, Mr. Zimmerman said staff was directed to study mechanisms for in -lieu payments for small expansions. Councilmember Bechtel asked how many buildings were involved. Vice Mayor Woolley said there was Mr. Thoita' building; the victorian immediately behind the Gatehouse Restaurant; the Lanning Chateau; and a little house tucked into the alley behind the teiephc,A# company; and one house on University Avenue at 564 University. Mr. Zimmerman said if directed, staff would double-check the list. Counci1 mber Bechtel Was concerned about opening a can of worms. While she sympathized with the , wall properties, the larger ones could have a major impact. As Councilmember Fletcher pointed out, there ware other incentives possible. 7 8 2 6 10/27/86, MOTION PASSED by a vot4 of 6-3, Rsnrel, Bechtel, Fletcher voting *no.'s 9. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE REFINANCING OUTSTANDING DEBT (404) Councilmember Levy. had a conflict of interest and would not par- ticipate in the item. NOTION: Cosncilatss r. Sutorius for the Finance and Public Work* Committee moved re Refinancing Outstanding Debt - Financial Advisor to direct staff to proceed with negotiations for. an Agreement Between City of Palo Alto and Security Pacific Merchant Banking Group for analysis and refinancing services, and to nego- tiate with Prudential Bache should staff fail to obtain a satis- factory agreement with Security Pacific Merchant Banking Group. Councilmember Sutorius said the F&PW Committee's recommendation was unanimous. A thorough staff report was provided and the F&PW Committee conducted a thorough review. In the future, he antici- pated such items could be on the Consent Calendar. The recom- mendation for a financial advisor and consultant services had a dual track in that the contract would provide for financial advisory or consultant service for the overall_situation regarding potential new financings or refinancings. and sharing knowledge with respect to financial markets, tax situations, tax-exempt situations, and various other kinds of -offerings. The second track would be implemented if the City went into a new financing or refinancing and a separate schedule of compensation was asso- ciated. The F&PW Committee believed it was an appropriate manner to undertake financial at visory services. Councilmember Patitucci related to the historical nature of interest charges, yield situa- tions and questioned how extensively the City might need to go into financial advisory work on the subject at the present time; however, he believed everyone was satisfied in light of tax reform, it was entirely ap.:opriate to go ahead. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy "not pe ticipating. " 10. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DEFINITION OF BOARDING HOUSES AND CREATING RESTRICTIONS (2 l) Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the majority of the Commission cited three major grounds for its recommendation that Council take no action on a boarding house ordinance. The current ordinances in Palo Alto could effectively address bla-tent conver- sions of single-family homes to boarding houses. The boarding house ordinance under consideration would only indirectly address the health, safety and parking problems' created by -some boarding houses. It appeared the ordinances would likely have significant 7.8 2 7 10/27/86 deleterious effects on legitimate uses of R-1 zones, which might include legitimate single-family remodeling projects or the development of communal households. The Commission gathered no evidence that the City was likely to see single-family homes converted to boarding houses at a rate significant enough to war- rant regulation. The trend of the last 10 to 15 years was the opposite as homes which were once used for a variety of persons were rehabilitated and converted back to single-family homes --a tribute to the strength of the single-family market in Palo Alto. Two Commissioners believed boarding houses posed a significant threat to particular single-family zones especially those downtown, and supported the development of an ordinance. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether the residents of 1001 Ramona, within the existing laws, could have retained the kitchen on the first floor and created a bedroom from all of the other rooms so there would be nine bedrooms all with internal access. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the requirements for the remodeling would ;,have required a kitchen accessible to all the units and d a communal eating area to accommodate at least nine people. There could be anumber of bedrooms created. Vice Mayor .Woolley clarified under existing laws a house with the amount of rooms as contained at 1001 Ramona could be converted to all bedrooms except for a kitchen and a common room. Maureen Eppstein, 1037 Ramona Street, said of the 27 cities in the Bay Area which responded to their survey, all either prohibited boarding houses in R-1 districts or required a use permit with public notice and hearing. Concerning whether a boarding house such as that originally proposed at 1001 Ramona could legally be built, the floor pLan needed a central corridor down the first floor, a kitchen, and a common area. No special considerations for design, fire safety, parking or neighborhood impact were required. Staff advised that enforcement would be a problem, but she believed if an ordinance was enacted, most people would make a good faith effort to comply. She believed the recommendation of City staff and the Planning Commission was ,inappropriate ,and unresponsive. She regcieeted staff be directed to try again " to. come up .with a definition and use permit. Such an actions would give staff some tools to tell a developer what was and what was not expected. It would give residents h t R-1 neighborhoods confidence in their future. Sandy Peters, 1021 Ramona Street, regdested copies of zoning ordi- nances which defined and addressed boarding houses from 40 neigh- boring cities, and to date, receiRved. 27 replies. Without excep- tion and where allowed, boarding houses were permitted only through the use permit process. If boarding houses were permitted 7 8 2 8 10/27/86 1 at all, use permits were possible only in R-3 or commercial zones in` 21 of the 27 cities --boarding or lodging houses were not permitted under any conditions in R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods; 8 of the 27 cities with conditional. use permits allowed boarding and lodging houses in R-2 neighborhoods, and only 5 cities with a con- ditional use permit allowed boarding, rooming or lodging houses in R-1 neighborhoods. A couple of cities did not allow boarding. houses at a11. Several cities listed boarding houses as busi- nesses requiring business licenses. Almost all of the conditional use permit processes addressed the parking issue. The City of Cupertino included boarding houses and/or rooming houses for more than two guests on its list of excluded occupations in residential areas. The City of San Jose with San Jose State [university defined a boarding house and allowed it with conditional use per- mits in R-3 zones only. The City of Berkeley defined a boarding house and allowed it in an R-3 neighborhood with a conditional, use permit. Specific definitions varied slightly. The City of San Francisco had the following definition: "A boarding house is a dwelling other than hotel where lodging or lodging and meals for three or more persons is provided for compensation." All cities said the: ordinances were currently on their books and enforceable. She submitted various letters to the City Council (on file in the City Clerk's office) confirming the significance of the issue as addressed by neighboring cities. She suggested Palo Alto's Planning Department use the information to arrive at a suitable definition and a zoning restriction. Linda. Ludden, 1048 Ramona, said public hearings and community review of boarding or lodging houses were included in S11 of the definitions and all of the neighborhoods in which they were allowed. Staff suggested some processes whereby the public would of be informed or allowed to participate. It was important to note in the letter to the Palo Alto Weekly that present ordinances could not necessarily preclude a property from being used in a densified boarding house manner. Having a definition and' - ordinance would make the rules clear -to developers, neighbors, and people buying into what they believe to be an R-1 neighborhood. The developer of the property at 1001 ° Ramona was a positive example of someone who changed their plans when he saw the ongoing neighborhood concern and participation in his project and when the moratorium was instituted. She referred to the Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 1986, and was concerned and appalled about the negativity of the staff report presented to the Commission. Commissioner Hirsch Accurately stated the definition needed a lot more work. Based upon the statements made by City staff coupled with the information received from the other cities, it appeared a boarding house should be disallowed in R-1. neighborhoods all together. 7 8 2 9 10/27/86 Brian Carlisle, 1013 Ramona, believed when homeowners purchased a house in an R-1 designated area, they had certain expectations about the present and future quality of life in the neighborhood, which included an average lower residential density, leas traffic, noise, adequate parking, and a sense that many of the residences were occupied by owners who had an interest in preserving the appearance of their community. Inaction placed R-1 zoning in general at risk. While he believed the developer intended to confine remodeling efforts to a two -unit building, there was nothing to prevent him from going ahead and putting in eight or ten bedrooms. He requested Council set the policy that Palo Alto would have a, definition for boarding and lodging houses and that the use be restricted in R-1 zones. Martin Bernstein, 3315 Waverley, said any definition needed to be careful not to exclude a property owner from enjoying the R -I zone privileges. He referredto a family who moved to Palo Alto into a house with four bedrooms and four baths. The owners wanted to add a private master bathroom, but it was not allowed. A definition could actually exclude a family from moving into an R-1 zone. Mr. Schreiber said the City defined "lodging," which use was essentially the same as "boarding," and .prohibited lodging in R-1 and R-2 districts. He and Mr. Herman raised the question with their colleagues and many jurisdictions defined "boarding house," but few, if any, admitted to any type of enforcement effort, and no jurisdictions professed to have a definition they believed was supportable or defendable given the .definition of "family" .under State law. There was no clear delineation between the traditional family and "family" as defined by California law, which is any group of individuals who wanted to constitute themselves as a housekeeping unit. In developing the report, staff was concerned about arriving at a definition to put in the zoning ordinance, but given their experience, they did not believe they could come up with something that would be clearly defendable. What wasone person's isoarding house was another person's extended housekeeping unit. Trying to prove how rent was split up among six students or elderly who happened to be living in a house was something staff grappled with and did not believe it was reasonable to conclude they could come up with something enforceable and defendable. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether the project at 1001 Ramona could go forward under the City's definition of "lodging." Chief Building Official .Fred Henn said the project at 1001 Ramona was brought to the City's attention ley the neighborhood„ The plans the owner eubmitted, after havinga stop order iseeed, were rejected twice. There was no way the original proposal would have been permitted under current regulations. It was the first such case in 15 years and was a gross exaggeration of trying to do what he could to maximize the use. • Ccuncilmember Patitucci asked whether the plans were rejected . on the basis of the definition of "lodging." Mr. Herman said yes. It was not a dwelling unit or a duplex as originally designed. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether there were any boarding houses now operating in Palo Alto. Mir. Herman said there were several boarding houses in Palo Alto including a few in Professorville which prior to the regulations defining a "family," had multiple units, multiple lodging, primarily Stanford students, living in large homes. There were probably many more the City did not know about, but there was the problem of enforcement• since the .Supreme Court ruling of "family." Councilmember Levy said there was a difference between the approval of construction in what looked like it might end up being a single-family home but, in fact, could be converted into a boarding house. Under Mountain View's ordinances, he asked whether the questioned project on Ramona could be built. Ms. Northway did not believe Mountain View's ordinance conformed with the Adamson case to the extent it tried to limit a family in terms of unrelated people by size. She believed the case was clear on that point. Councilmember Levy asked whether the revised plans for the Ramona project would have been approved under the Mountain View ordi- nance. Mr. Brown did not believe there would have been any reason to deny the plans. It could have been the creation of one large single- family home. He did not believe there . would be any way of restricting the construction at the building permit stage under either ordinance. Ms. Northway believed the Adamson case said one Could not dis- tinguish between people whowere married or otherwise related and people who were not. The only criteria for establishing a family is whether people were living together as, a single housekeeping unit a as, a family --sharing meals, activities, expenses —regardless of whether they were related by blood or marriage. As far as Palo Alts was concerned. its ordinance was in keeping with the law. Vice Mayor Woolley asked for further clarification of Palo . Alto's definition of "lodging." 7 S 3 1 10/27/86 Mr. Brown read the following definition into the record: "'Lodging' means the furnishing of rooms, or groups of rooms, within a dwelling unit, or an accessory building, to ;persons other than members of the family residing in said dwelling unit; or, in the case of an accessory building, ` a dwelling unit on .the same site, for overnight occupancy on a .residential occupancy basis whether or not meals are provided to such persons. Lodging shall be subject to the residential density requirements of the district in which the useis located.* Lodging was a permitted use in the multi -family districts of Palo Alto which was the means under which bed and breakfast facilities were being built, but it was not permitted in eingle-family districts. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if renting a room to one Stanford student in an R-1 district was. illegal. Mr. Brown said no. It was renting to members other .than members of the immediate family unit. If the Stanford student was sharing the same kitchen, eating facilities, then the person would be a member of the family and it would not be limited. Vice Mayor Woolley said if one rented a room, but did not allow kitchen privileges, it would be illegal. Mr. Brown said yes it would be illegal.. A number of students could rent a home, share a communal lease, all sharing kitchen facilities, and it would be legal as opposed to distinguishing each individual person as having a different lease. Councilmember Bechtel was still sympathetic to the issue because she believed areas around the downtown were most likely, with some of the large buildings, to be impacted. She admired the research done by members of the public but did not want the City to create an unnecessary ordinance. Although many other surrounding cities had ordinances related to "boarding" houses, Palo Alto had ordi- nances a few years ago which were changed when the City Attorney advised the State Supreme Court ruled it was unconsti tutiOnal to prohibit more than four unrelated .people from sharing a dwelling. The Palo Alto City Attorney.> did a good job to ensure all regula- tions complied with the law, and the definition of fetidly was carefully reviewed. Mr. Berman correctly pointed out that in the past 15 years boarding houses were not an issue. However, Palo Alto might have pseudo boarding houses it did not , know about. If those came to light, she believed it was appropriate to look at the matter again. As to the City's ordinance related to "lodging," in many neighborhoods - she suspected there were people violating the law and providing a room to a Stanford student and not allowing kieenen privileges. She did .not believe the City was prepared to go around and enforoe that p rtion of the law for ore student --for ten students„ the City. would. 7 8 3 2 10/27/86 NATION TO REFER: Corncilmember Patitucci moved, secondcj by Menzel, to re -refer the matter to the Planning Commission and staff to come up with a definition. Councilmember Patitucci believed Council broke some new ground in its historic preservation ordinance by initiating some procedures which were not proven in other cities to be necessarily defens- able, but Palo Alto was going to take some risks and do it. Council should do the same thing in the subject instance. Palo Alto's legal staff was creative and the Planning. Department knew what did and did not work in other areas. Palo Alto could make significant efforts to develop an ordinance, which if nothing else, would be a lightning rod for community awareness of the issue and opportunities to bring other, kinds of pressure on developers who may be pushing the limits of the current definitions of family and living unit. Councilmember Fletcher received many complaints from citizens about the bureaucratic morass of the inconveniences, restrictions they went through when they wanted to remodel their homes. It was a serious issue and if the City started putting limits beyond what was already. enforceable, which seemed to be considerable, people's nights' would ` be further 'reStricted. She was not talking about coMmerCIai 'uses. She was not prepared to go beyond what the City already had because she believed -it would add to the inconvenience being imposed on people who wanted to remodel their homes. Councilmember Levy sympathized with the objectives and did not want to see boarding houses in R-1 neighborhoods, but did not know how to accomplish the objective any more then defining lodging houses and prohibiting them from R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. He assumed staff carefully researched the matter, but asked staff what new areas would be looked into if a re -referral passed. Mr. Schreiber said the assignment receivedconcentrated attention from three members of the City Attorney's and four to six people on the Planning staff. He did not know what else could be explored to try and arrive at a solution. Ms. Northway said the City Attorney's office was out of creative approaches. Counciltsember Levy referred to a building in an R-1 neighborhood being'.used as a lodging house, and asked what the City could do under its current ordinances. Ms. NOrthway said the owner of the building could be cited for violation of the :coning code each day being a continuing violation which could ,e . a substantial fine. The maximum fine for a mis- demeanor was $500 and it would ` be $500 per day. The City could also get an injunction to prohibit the continuation of the usage. 1 7 8 3 3, 10/27/86 Councilmember Levy was satisfied' `thi'fait ''had' oialaardes"whi::h defined "lodging" house and prohibited them in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and which gave the City some clout in responding when neighbors saw the possibility of a boarding house use in an area. Because he did not see what new ground would be broken by a re -referral, he would oppose the motion. Councilmember Renzel said the City defined lodging and regulated it tightly in multi -family zones, requiring a parking space for every two lodging units, etc. The City seemed unable to do so in R-1 areas because by definition and Supreme Court rulings, the City would have to somehow inquire as to the way a group of people lived in an R-1 property whereas the City was not restrained in that fashion in multi -family zones. She believed the City was being somewhat timid in looking at approaches to the problem because the City might somehow constrain people who wished to remodel. The City's zones were designed to constrain and give everyone a sense of predictability with respect to a zone. Los Altos Hills prided itself on having a minimum of gdvernmental regulation and did not want to be regulated themselves, but .were, finally clamoring for regulation because of what some of their' other neighboring properties were doing. If the City failed to take the bull by the horns in advance of a major problem, the City created an economic situation which prevented young families from buying houses and Also encouraged demolition, redevelopment and renovations .that resul€ed in bbar'd ng' houses and mu ltiplc Qhi£s' ft R--1„ It was important for the City to at least in a policy way say it did not want boarding houses. Iit -1 2 nes, a'nd' s`tie 1303 i`er�ed that statement in and of itself would turn at least some developers from even attempting to do it. If ultimately someone decided to challenge such an ordinance, and apparently it was not challenged in any of the nearby 27 communities, then that might be the time for the issue to be resolved and the definition of "family" looked at again in. terms .of whether an R-1 zone would mean anything -or even less than a multi -family zone. She believed the matter needed to be re -referred acid grappled with some more and arrive at some conclusion to preserve the integrity of R-1 zones. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to renting out rooms where the kitchen would be used with the family and she believed there were many situations where that was beneficial to all, both from the stand- point of providing much needed housing and companionship for the senior community. She was more concerned with the idea of creating rooms which had their own self-contained kitchens so there was really no family element. She asked about eliminating the possibility of the kitchen 7 8 .3 4 10/27/86 As corrected 11/24/86 Mr. Herman said four to six applicationsper week were a photo- graphic studio or some type of sink in what was called a "guest" room. which could easily be converted by a hot -plate or microwave to a kitchen. The area on the plans were clearly marked not to be used for living area, and a ;second kitchen was not permitted under the zoning ordinance. Under current zoning regulations, he esti- mated the City received four to eight complaints a month about illegal second units in single-family homes for the past several. years. He did not believe creating a new ordinance would help the enforcement without having a full-time search warrant to go into every home to see what they were doing and who was there. The City responded to all complaints by contacting the owners, and found in many cases they were illegal units and they were removed, MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Rerzel, Patitucci voting 'aye." NO ACTION TAKEN COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:40 p.m. TO 9:50 p.m. 11. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (HRB) RECOMMENDATION RE 51 ENCINA (263) HRB Vice Chairperson Carolyn George said Helen McCloskey nominated the house at 51 Encina on behalf of JosephGreer. Mr. Greer was the . first person. who settled in Palo Alto who was other than a native Indian or Spanish. Helen McCloskey, 580 Mountain Home Road, Woodside, said the Greers were friends of her family since the 1870s. The house was not interesting architecturally. but was a solid example ofa turn a century house. One of the unique things about the Greer family which made it of particular interest to the State of California was the merging of both Hispanic and Irish in the early part of the State's settlement. Joe Greer was in his late 80s and vividly recalled the early days of the State and the particular area, Mr. Greer was interested in preserving the house because it was the last remaining house of the Greer estate, which covered all of Downtown Pala Alto and much of the area around the Hay Area. Mr. Greer was interested in some type of historical association use of the house after his demise which was how the original application for historic zoning on the house arose. The ,recommendation was unanimous. smog; Vics Mayor moved, seconded by Stenzel. to approve the staff recoern ends tiee to adopt the Historic . Resources Beard's findings that the building at SI Racine Avenue has his- thrio significance and that it be added to the Pals Alto Historic Saildisg Inventory as a category 3 building, 7 8 3 5 10/27/86 Vice Mayor Woolley said the house was in an unlikely location and was not in a neighborhood surveyed when historic houses were sought. When the first survey was made, the house was in; poor condition and since then has been rehabilitated and was in good condition. She thanked Helen McCloskey and Joe Greer for bring the house to the attention of the Historic Resources Board. Councilmember Renzel said even when the house was run down it gave a feeling of what it might have been l ike in Palo Alto in the early days because of its old fashioned flavor. She was glad it was being put on the Historic Building Inventory. NOTION PASSED unanimously. 8. POLICY AND PROCEDURES (P&P) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE OVERNIGHT PARKING OF PUSHCARTS (1066) 12. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT AND PUSHCART IMPLEMENTATION (1011) (CMR:528:6) CRITERIA: ORDINANCE Mayor Cobb received a call from a member o_ f the public who was a proprietor of the leather -good shop next to Walgreens who had serious concerns about the blockage due to a pushcart in front of his establishment. Police Department Ordinance Compliance Inspector Peter Hazarian said when the vendor went to the Police Department with the size of the cart, it would have fit cne criteria of eight -foot clearance. Once the cart was in place, it exceeded the eight -foot clearance and looked to be about a: six-foot clearance. The vendor was given notice that he needed tolook for a new location within the next week. Mayor Cobb clarified the only size restriction in terms of width was driven by the eight feet or comparable dimensions. Mr. Hazarian said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the measurement problem was corrected where the B.J. Bull cart near the telephone .company was eight feet from the wall but only allowed six or seven feet of sidewalk She clarified that now there had to be eight feet of sidewalk clearance. Air. Hazarian said that was correct. CounciImember Bechtel asked about the pushcart vendor fees in . view of the speaker who was concerned ,about the unfairness of ? th6 - feet' as compared to someone who leased property. She realized the person had other expenses, and she asked for the differentia* in the cost of doing business in Palo . Alto as a pushcart vendor as opposed to someone in store front business. 7 8 3 6 10/27/86 As corrected: 11/24/86 Mr. Hazarian did not know what costs were involved in the store front business. The fees proposed covered all costs in terms of processing the application and doing the ongoing inspection of the cart 0. Councilmember Bechtel said one distinction had to do with employee licensing and renewal. If one did business, one usually had a place of:� business being leased and each employee was not being licensed. She asked for justification. Mr. Hazarian said it was standard procedure for the Police Department, under any licenses or permits, to do a background check on the applicant, which was what the fees included. The Police Department looked for any type of criminal background which might pose a threat to the public safety. He would not grant a per. mi, t if a vendor- was convicted of selling drugs. Councilmember Bechtel asked about the justification for the businesses being licensed. Ms. Northway said Palo Alto did not lizense businesses. In the subject instance, someone was conductir_n their business from the public. street, .and the public streets were held in trust for all people in the community. It was on that basis that the City made a distinction as t.o how those people were t>eated. It was the City's space. The Police Department was charging on a cost- recovery ;basis and the City was not making any money. Councilmember Bechtel asked how Palo Alto's fees compared to sur- rounding communities. Mr. Hazarian said Menlo Park charged $300 per year per cart; Mountain View charged $5 per day; Sunnyvale charged $105 per cart; and San Jose charged $240 per year. Mike McHugh, 450 Grant Avenue, had two flower carts ----one on Ca-lifornia Avenue and one on University. Originally pushcarts were bunched into the door-to-door solicitation ordinance and now pushcarts would have its own ordinance. Regarding whether the hours: of operation should. be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., many of:; his customers were irritated and confused about why Palo Alto believed pushcart vendors needed to be closed at 6:00 p.m. He recommended pu,shcar°ta be allowed to open at 7:00 a.m. because it was light all year round and close ' at 8:00 p.m. because there were enough people onthe street to keep the carts from causing crime. Regarding the requirement that all carts needed a health permit, there was no way a flower cart could get a health permit. 7 8.3 7 10/27/86 Martin Bernstein, 3315 Waverley, believed it was inappropriate for a cart the sizes of the one in front of Walgreens to block so much of the sidewalk. Councilmember Klein for the P&P Committee said the P&P Committee chose to follow the recommendation of staff and take no action other than to encourage staff to monitor the situation following the current procedures. Mr. Hazarian said staff would continue to work with pushcart owners as a matter of course. Sidewalk Encroachment and Pushcart Criteria - Ordinance Implemen- tation MOTION' Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt tbd, staff recommendation to approve the following with the addition that the hours of operation he changed from 9:00 a.a. to 6:00 p.m. 1. .The draft ordinances: a) Incorporating use, location .and design criteria approved earlier by the City Council; and b) Adding operational regulations for pushcarts discussed in CMR:5 20:4 2. The identified changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; 3. The rescinding of subsection 4.10.050(f) of the Municipal Code© ORDINIINCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL lF THE CITY 61 PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTERS - 12.12 AND 4.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTA$ LISSYRG CRITERIA AND REVIEW - PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENTS AND PUSHCART v NDORSR AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel mewed, seconded by Fletcher, to change thm hours of operation to be from 7:00. a.m. to 0:00 , ►maw" Councilmember Bechtel believed it would be a service to the people in the community to be able to buy flowers before and after the usual hours of a florist shop, buy a cup of coffee or whatever a vendor might sell. She did not believe it would be an inconven- ience or disruption to the residents of the community. AMEROREET INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION AY WUU AND SECOND 7 8 3 8 10/27/86 Councilmember Fletcher asked about the rationale between the hours of operation being 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hazarian said the hours went along with the solicitation ordinance where pushcarts were originally. Councilmember Levy questioned the hours of operation. It seemed the City would be better served to not have any limits on hours of operation. If vendors found it profitable to be out at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., they should be allowed to, and the only restriction should be that.: when they were not open for business, their push- carts were off the City streets. In terms of employee licensing, he ,shared Councilmember Bechtel ' s question as to why an employee needed to be licensed doing business from a pushcart when employees were not licensed to do business generally in the com- munity. AMINDMINT: Councilmember Levy moved to entirely dowlete any restriction* to hours of operation for pushcarts. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Renzel asked if the condition for health licenses meant only where appropriate or whether it needed to be specified. Mr. Hazarian said it meant "where appropriate." MOTION PARSED unanimously. Councilmember Levy was unclear as to where the employee license requirement was approved by Council. He asked if it was part of t•he ordinance. Mr. Hazarian said it was part of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Mr. Zaner did not believe the ordinance itself required that employees be licensed. The practice stemmed from the original peddler's ordinance and was one which staff proposed to retain. 13. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER, RENZEL RE RESPONSE TO PUBIC NOTICE FROM U.S. ARMY CORPS -OF ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE YACHT 1 0 Councilmember Renzel said the public notice was out.for the City's application to remove the docks, pilings and derelict buildings at the Yacht Harbor. She reviewed ,many, filca at the Army Corps of Engineers and typically City Councils supported applications in their ,jurisdiction. She believed it would be appropriate for Palo Alto to write a letter of support outlining why Palo Alto was making application and why approval was important. 7 8 3 9 10/27/86 MOTIOMs Councilmember Menzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the Mayor sand a letter to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers setting out why applicatioM was clads by the City of Palo Alto and why approval was important. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the letter was necessary. Mr. Zane, said it was not necessary, but would not'be damaging. Councilmember Levy did not believe Council needed to deal with such a policy matter. The City already applied to the Army Corps of Engineers and if staff believed the application was deficient and Council action was required, staff should return. Council already took the policy action and should not get into the detail which the recommendation entailed. Councilmember Klein agreed with Councilmember Levy and would "abstain" from voting. He could not be recorded as voting "no" because he did not disagree with what was in the letter, but was not in favor of the process. Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Levy. Councilmember Renzel believed it was appropriate for Council to tell Colonel Perkins how important the decision was to Colmcil and the background. It was common practice in other communities to have letters from the City Council on such applications. The Colonel balanced the information received and. weighed the public benefit versus public harm, etc. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Councilmember R3nzel. She believed Council wtis "making a mountain out of a molehill" to abstain on the issuer Councilmember Patitucci said if Council sent the letter. the vote should be indicated..; MOTION FAILED by a vote of i-4--1, Pstiteeci, Woolley, Sutorius, Levy voting N *5, iUeia •abstaining." N . ACTIONS TAX= ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10 20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVE % 1